> (
> * size = E1 * E2;@p
> |
> * size = E1 * E2 * E3;@p
> |
> * size = E1 * E2 + E3;@p
> )
I suggest to reconsider also the order of elements for such a SmPL disjunction.
Can a computation like “E2 * E3” also be matched by the expression
metavariable “E2” alone?
Regards,
Markus
I propose once more to avoid a typo in the previous patch subject.
…
> (
> - size = E1 * E2;
> + size = array_size(E1, E2);
> |
> - size = E1 * E2 * E3;
> + size = array3_size(E1, E2, E3);
> |
> - size = E1 * E2 + E3;
> + size = struct_size(E1, E2, E3);
> )
How do you think about to use SmPL dis
I suggest to avoid a typo in the previous patch subject.
…
> +virtual context
> +virtual report
> +virtual org
+virtual context, report, org
Is such a SmPL code variant more succinct?
…
> +@as_next@
> +expression subE1 <= as.E1;
> +expression as.E1;
…
I propose to reduce the repetition of th
